R v Hall

Crit :~inal 1-aw - Appeal by the Crox-nl againsl; adequacy of

l '

sentbncc

P r i n c i p l e s upon

which

a p p e l l a t e cour t

w i l l

intervene t o a l t e r t r i a l judge's

sentence - Cocsideraxions

r e l e v a n t

t o

the

imposi t ion of

sentence.

Procedure

a t t r i a l -

I r r e g u l a r i t y -

Plea o f

g u i l t y t o two

counts - Re-arraigllment

on f i r s t count a f t e r t r i a l had

cos!aenced - Change of p l e a on f i r s t co r~n t t o g u i l t y ,- V --- Leave t o e n t e r n o l l e prosequi on second comlt - Whether

accused i n the charge of

the jury - Oral leave t o a r r a i g n

on s u b s t i t u t e d second count - Appropriateness o r otherwise

f i l i n g a

n o l l e prosequi

i n r e l a t i o n t o

the

original .

secorlcl

count

lirllether a u t h o r i t y t o d e c l i n e

t o prosecute

a.vail.afjS.c~,

R , v. HALL

NO. W .

l 1 of 1379

GENERkL DIVISIO:?

. l'

. .

BEx'WEzN:

AND:

8 . . .

O R D E R

JUXXS EL9KIIIC ORDl.3:

Toohey, Gallop & Lockhart J. J.

' .

DATE OF O i l D E 3 :

28 June 1979

wg~m

IrmE:

Darwin

I.	.	The appeal against the sentence inposod by the Supreme Court
.	.	P

of the Northern Terr i tory of ~Atralia

- upon the respondent's

being convicted of unlawfully and maliciously s e t t i n g f i r e t o

. .

a building c o n t r a y t o sect ion 86 of

the Criminal Law

Consolidation Act and Ordinance be allowed and t h a t i n

subs t i tu t ion f o r

the s a i d sentence the respondent

imprisoned f o r a period of four years b d ten months with

a non-par013

~ e r i o d

of two years and six months.

The appeal against the sentence inposed by the S u p r e ~ e

Court

of the Northern Terr i tory of Australia upon the respondent's

. . -

being convicted of unlawful and malicious dvnage by night

contrary t o sect ion 129 of the Criminal Law Consolidation

. .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTI1ALIA

)

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	No. NTG 1 1 of 1979
GENEFUL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE NORTI-IERN T E R R I T O R Y O F A U S T l U L I A

THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:

PHILLIP GRAHAM HALL

CORAM: TOOHEY, GALLOP.& LOCKHART JJ.

Thursday 28 June 1979

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This is an appeal against sentence imposed by

the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory following the conviction of the respondent on two charges: first, that he unlawfully and maliciously set fire to a building contrar

to S . 86 bf the ~rirnifial Law Consolidation Act and Ordinance

and secondly that he committed unlawful and malicious damage

in the night contrary to S. 129 thereof.

On 20 April 1979 the learned sentencing judge

sentenced the respondent on the first charge to four years

and ten monthsr imprisonment, with a non-parole period of

two years, and on the second charge to two years'

imp&isonrnent with a non-parole period of one year and

ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. . He

further ordered that the respondent be released from

custody on 2 July 1979 on the following conditions:-

1. That he enter into a bond in his own

recognizance in the sum of $500.00 to be

of good behaviour for a period of three

years ;

2. That he place himself under the supervision

of a probation officer during the said period of

three years and obey the directions of the said

probation officer as to employment and place of

living and that he report to the said probation

officer on 2 July 1979 and obey his directions

as t.o further reporting and that he subject

himself. to such medical psychiatric or

psychological treatment as may from time to

time be directed by his said probation officer

and those from time to time in charge of his

treatment; and

3. That he pay by way of restitution, the sum

of $3,800.00 by instalments as follows:-

('ii)	$1,000.00 by 20 December l9SO;
(iii)	$1,500.00 by 20 December 1981; and
(iv)	$1 ,000.00 by 30 June 1982.

The Crown appeals against this sentence, submitting that the sentence is so inadequate as to manifest an error i principle on the part of the learned sentencing judge. It i not submitted that any error appears on the face of his

Honour's remarks; but it is said that the sentence imposed

falls so far short of the range of sentences which would be

dictated by the exercise of.sound judicial discretion that this court should intervene and impose a sentence which is

appropriate in the {ircumstances.

Th respondent lived at No. 1 Lambell Terrace

Darwin close to the Darwin Hospital and the Red Cross

Centre. The house was owned by a Miss Fleper.

She

occupied the house together with the respondent and a Mr.

T. J. Findlay. Each person occupied a separate bedroom

and shared facilities in common.

The respondent had been living at those premises

for about two weeks before the events of 20 November 1978.

For about six or seven months before then, he had

been working on a voluntary basis with the Red Cross doing

jobs such as Meals On Wheels.

On 17 November 7978, three

days before the respondent set the fires which led to his

conviction, he telephoned the Red Cross Centre and enquired

whether he could purchase some vases from the Red Cross

Opportunity Shop which formed part of the Centre. He enquir

as to what type of items were kept in the shop and was told

that there was clothing, ki

tchenware , bedding and mat tresses

On Sunday 19 November 1978 the respondent and Mr. Findlay together with one other person arranged to dine at

a restaurant in Darwin called "Melissa's Restaurant" which

was owned by the same lady who owned No. 1 Lambell Terrace,

Darwin namely Miss Fleper. The respondent arrived at

Melissa's Restaurant at about 6.30 p.m. and was joined by

h,is two dinner companions about an hour later.

He was not

intoxicated when he arrived at the restaurant, but during tl

course of the evening the three peop,Se consumed a few drink:

1 -

before dinner, four bottles of wine with dinner and possi.bly

some beer also.

The three people left the restaurant somewhere

between 12.15 and 12.45 a.m. the respondent being somewhat

intoxicated. He was driven back to his home by Mr. Findlay

who went to bed about five minutes later. Miss Fleper left

the restaurant about half an hour after the respondcnt did

and she too went home, taking with her six bottles of Crown

Lager beer.

Miss Fleper and'the respondent sat up and talkec

till about 3.00 a.m. during which time the respondent drank two cans of beer and Miss Fleper one bottle of Crown Lager.

At about 3.00 a.m. Miss Fleper retired to her room

and went to bed.

Prior to her doing so the respondent tried

to dissuade her by asking her to stay up and have some more

beer, but at that time the respondent was fairly drunk. Upo

her retirement Miss Fleper left five full bottles of Crown

Lager beer; but when she r0se.i.n the morning she noticed that all five bottles were empty although the respondent hac been drinking cans of Carlton Draught beer whilst the two 01

them conversed until the early hours of the morning.	Crown
Lager bottles hold thirteen ounces of beer.

At 3-35 a.m. the control room of the Northern

Territory Fire Brigade received a message that there was a fire in Shultz Street which runs off Lambell Terrace. At

3.36 a.m. the first fire truck arrived, and noticed that th

Red Cross Opportunity Shop was on fire. It took the fire

' .

brigade about 10 minutes to bring the fire under control.

The observations of the firemen were that there was one room in which the fire had obviously started being a

bedroom in which the're was a bed and mattress.

It was a

room kept by the Red Cross for accommodating people who

visited Darwin from the outback to see their relatives or

friends who were in the Darwin Hospital.	There was nobody
resident in that room that night.

At 4.11 a.m. the Control Centre of the Fire Brigade fire brigade was at the Red Cross Centre at that time; they received a second call in connection with a fire in the

moved to the second fire and brought it under control by

4.20 a.m.

When the fire brigade arrived at the Psychiatric

Clinic it was full of smoke but they were able to restrict .the fire to a small storage room where the fire had been started and which contained highly inflammable material in the form of toilet rolls and paper towels.

I need not review the evidence as to the witnesses who identified the respondent as the person who started the

fire because there is no do&t

that it was he who did so.

At 4.43 a.m. the police communications centre at Darwin received the first of four telephone calls from a person claiming to have lit the fires at the Psychiatric Clinic and the Red Cross Opportunity Shop. A second call

was received at 5.00 a.m.,

the third between 5.20 a.m. and

5.25.a.m. and the final call at about 7.03 a.m.

. .

. l

Steps were 'eaken t~ trace the calls. They were

traced to the premises of No. 1 Lambell Terrace. Thereafter

the police surrounded the premises and arrested the responden

Before the respondent was arrested, Mr. Findlay

rose at about 6.40 a.m. and spoke to the respondent who was standing in the kitchen wearing a dressing gown and drinking beer. The respondetit told Mr. Findlay that he

had been up all night and had seen vehicles with flashing

lights travelling up and down in front of the house. Mr.

Findlay noticed that there were four empty Crown Lager bottles of beer.

At about 8.00 a.m. at the police station the

respondent was questioned by the police. He claimed to have slept until 7.00 in the morning and denied that he had made any telephone calls during the evening or morning

and said that he was asleep. He denied any knowled& of the

fires at the Red Cross Centre and the Psychiatric Cli~lic.

He then sought legal advice and, having obtained it, decline(

to answer any further questions.

There was considerable damage to the Red Cross

Opportunity Shop. The damage to the Psychiatric Clinic was restricted to its contents.

This is not the first time that the respondent

has been convicted of arson.

In January 1976 he was

sentenced by the Supreme Court of Wes.tern Australia in

Perth to imprisonment for three years.on two counts of arson

with .no parole period being fiied.

The respondent was

released from prison in Western Australia on 8 April 1978

, .

havi& served his sentence for two years and three months.

Within less than eight months he had lit the fires in the

Red Cross Opportunity Shop and the Psychiatric Centre of the

Darwin Hospital.

The Crown contended before this Court that the

learned sentencing judge should have imposed a substantial

sentence on each count and sl~ould

have found in all the

circumstances that no non-parole period should be specified.

This court will interfere wit11 the sentence imposed

by the learned sentencing judge if it is established that his

Honour was in error in acting on a wrong principle or in wrongly determining some material evidentiary question. This court does not intervene merely because in its opinion the sentence is excessive or inadequate. The error may appear from the learned sentencing judge's remarks or from the sentence itself which may be manifestly insufficient or

excessive.

See Skinner v. ~ ( 1 9 1 3 )

16 C.L.R. 366;

Whittaker v. R, (1928) 41 C.L.R. 230; Griffiths v. R, (1977

15 A.L.R.

1; R. v. Tait (a decision of the Full Bench of

this court delivered on 1 May 1979, not yet reported.)

Although the '~ederal

Court of Australia Act 1976

does not distinguish in principle between appeals by tlie

Crown and those by convicted persons, some special considerations arise where the Crown appeals on the ground that the sentence is insufficient. S,ee Peel v. R. (1971)

125 C.L.R.

447 especiall'y per Barwick.C. J. at p. 452; --

R. v

~ a i t

. (supra) . In R.. v. Tait (supra) Brennan, Deane and

-	-
Gallop JJ. said:-

"It would.be unjust to a defendant, whose

freedom is in jeopardy for the second time,

to c0nsider.0~

appeal a case made against

him on a new basis - a basis which he might

have successfully challenged had the case

against him been fully presented before

the sentencing court...There would be few

cases where the appellate court would

intervene on an appeal against sentence

to correct an alleged error by increasing the

sentence if the Crown had not done what was

reasonably required to assist the sentencing

judge to avoid the error, or if the defendant

were unduly prejudiced in meeting for the first

time on appeal the true case against him."

In the light of these principles I turn to the

present appeal. The Crown submitted that the learned

sentencing judge imposed sentences so manifestly inadequate

as called for the intervention of this Court. The Crown

contended that his Honour had regard solely to the question

of rehabilitation of the respondent to the exclusion of

matters of deterrence and the general protection of the

community. The Crown submitted that his Honourls error

is manifest from an examination of first, the inherent

nature of the offences themselves; second, the circumstances

surrounding the commission of the offences; third, the

character of the respondent particularly when consideration

is given to his antecedents, and fourth, the future prospect:

of rehabilitation of the respondent as opposed to the very

real prospect of a repetition by him of the same sort of

offence.

The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, the

subject of the first count, is fourteen years1 imprisonment.

In Tait's Case (supra) the Court said:-

"A m 4 x i m u r n penalty

is reserved for the worst

type of case falling within the relevant

prohibition. The observance of this principle

provides the flexibility in sentencing which

secures proportion and comparability among

l	sentences imposed.. .The prescribing of a maxin~um

. i

penalty in respect:of an offence not only marks

the limits of the court's discretionary power as

to sentence, it also ordinarily prescribes what

the penalty should be in the worst type of case

which falls within the relevant class of offence...

That is not to say that a maximum penalty should

not be impoied in a case which otherwise required

it merely because a worse case could be imagined.

...	That principle requires that both the nature

of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal

be considered in determining whether the case is

of the worst type."

The circamstances surrounding the commission of

the offence and the antecedents of the respondent require

imposition of a substantial sentence,

The deterrent aspect of punishment is of considerabl importance in cases of this kind. The sentence should

demonstrate to others tempted to engage in offencesof a like

nature that punishment will be imposed calculated to protect

society from serious attacks upon it.

It was submitted by counsel for the respondent that

it would not be in the best interest of the respondent to be

sentenced to a term of imprisonment 'as he was a person

suffering from deep-seated psychological problems. A great

deal of psychiatric and psychological material was before th

learned sentencing judge. His Honour gave great' weight to

what he regarded as the respondent's prospects of

rehabilitation. I have no doubt that the respondent impress himself upon the learned sentencing judge as a man with

distinct disord-ers of personality.

His Honour clearly held

the view that the respondent was capable of being rehabilita provided he had the support of .'probation officers, psyclliat-

rists and psychologists.

I have considered the psychiatric

and psychological e~idence

placed before his Honour but have

come to the conclusion it does not support his Honour's

conclusion as to the respondent's prospects of rehabilitatio:

The maximum penalty prescribed for the first offenc namely fourteen yearst imprisonment, reflects its seriousnes Less than-eight months before he colnmitted that offence the

respondent had been released from prison in Western Australi having earlier cornrnitted offences of a like nature there. I

am left with the strong irnpression that the respondent is

quite likely to offend again in a similar way.

In my

opinion the reformative aspect was given too much weight

by the learned sentencing judge.. The result of his Honourts

decision when the sentence is viewed as a whole, is to

produce a sentence so lenient that it does not accord w i i h

the general moral sense of the community and is unlikely to

be a sufficient deterrent to the respondent or to others.

See R. v. Geddes ( 1 9 3 6 ) 36 S.R.

(~.~.~)554;

Channon v. R.

(19'789 20 A.L.R.

1 ;

R. v. Prihdable - a decision of the Ful

Bench of this court delivered 9 March 1979, not yet reportec

The error in the sentence of the learned sentencinl

judge is manifested particularly by the provision for the

release of the respondent on 2 July 1979 and as well by the

term of the non-parole period.

In my opinion the case calls for a sentence

imposing a term of iniprisonment without such release and

the fixing of a longer non-parole period.

I do not think

it necessary to alter the term of the head sentence.

I agree with.the conclusion of Gallop J., whose

reasons for judgment I have read, that no order should be

made by this court in respect of the sentence on the

substituted second count.

In the result I would allow the appeal and order

that in substitution for the sentence imposed on the first

count the respondent be imprisoned for a period of four

years ten months.

I specify a period of two years six month

during which he will not be eligible for parole.	The
sentence will date from 20 April 1979.

I agree with the learned sentkncing judge that

the sentences imposed on both counts should be served

concurrently.

IN 'JXIE FISDERAL~COUH'P OF AUSTIIALIA	)
1

No.

NTG 11 of 1979

' NORTHERN 'I'ERRITORY L)ZSTRICrT R B G I S T I I Y )

)

GENERAL DIVISION

ON A P P E A L from the SUPREFE COi.JTIrf OF

THE ROR'SHEKN TERRITOR1i OF A ~ J S ~ ~ R A L ~

BETWEEN :

THE (!UEEN

Appellant

AND :

P H I L L I P GRAHAPI

HALL

Respondent

CORAPI:

TOOHZY, GALLOP & LOCKI-IART JJ .

Thursday 28 June 1979

REASONS FOR JUDGM1':NT

I agree with the orders proposed by

Lockhart J. sand with his reasons for judgment.

I N TliE FEDBRAI. COIJRT OF AIJSTRALIA

1 '

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY )

No. l NTG l l of 1979

G E N E R A L

D I L " 1 S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT GF THE NOR'l'liERZi TERRT..TOKY GF A U Z l R X L I A

TIIE QUEEN

A p p e l l a n t

AND:

PHILLI P GI<-AHA?? HALL

-.	Respondent

CORAM:

TOOHEY, GALLOP & LOCRHART ;

2% June 1979

REASONS FOR JUDG)IENT

T h i s i s an

a p p e a l by

t h e Crown

a g a i n s t

t h e

s e n t e n c e

imposed i n t h e Supreme C o u r t of

t h e Nor the rn

T c r r i t n r y by

Nuirhoad

J .

20 A p r i l

1979.

The

r e s p o n d e n t

w a s a r r a i g n e d

a n i n d i c t m e n t

p r e s e n t e d

i n t h e name

Graham

R i c h ~ r d

Ir ' icholson,

p e r s o n

a p p o i n t e d by

t he

At torney-GeneFal

p " r s 9 a n t

t o s.13

o f

t h e C r i m i n a l Law

and Procedure A c t and

c o n t a i n i n g

t w o

c c u n t s :

"Count 1

Unlawfri l ly

and

m a l i c i o u s l y

s e t t i n g fire

t o 'a

b u i l d i n g :

c o n t r a r y

t o

s e c t i o n

5 6

t h e C r i m i n a l

L a w

C o n s o l i d a t i o n

A c t

and

O r G n a n c e .

PARTICULARS

P h i l l i p Graham H n l l d i d on t h e 20th day of

Koveinber 197S, i n Lacibell. Terrace Darwin i n

bile

ho1t1lcr.n Ter .1-i tory

' of

.%!l s t r a l i a ,

unlawf i ~ l l y

and m a l i c i o u s l y

s e t f i r e t o

b u i l d i n g ,

namely

t h e

Red

Cross

S o c i e t y

C l o t h i n g

S to re .

Count 2

~ n l a w f b l l ~

and m a l i c i o u s l y

s e t t i n g f i r e t o a

b u i l d i n g u s e d by

o r f o r a

department

o f

government:

c o n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n

85 of

t h e

Cr imina l

L a w

Conso l ida t ion Act

and Ordinance.

PARTICULARS

P h i l l i p ~ r a h a m

H a l l on t h e 20 th day of

November

1978 i n Lambell Te r r ace ,

D a r ~ i n ,

i n t h e

Nort l ier~l

T e r r i t o r y

A u s t r a l i a

unlarsf u l l y

and

m a l i c i o u s l y

set

f i r e t o t h e Day

C e n t r e o f

Darwin

H o s p i t a l ,

b e i n g

a b u i l d i n g used by

o r f o r a

depar tment

government,

namely t h e Hea l th Department."

The accused pleaded n o t g u i l t y t o b o t h counts .

A f t e r t h e t r i a l

had proceeded f o r two

days t h e Cro\\n a p p l i e d t o have t h e accuse

r e - a r r a i2ned

t h e f i r s t count ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i f

p leaded

g u i l t y t o t h e f i rs t count ,

t h a t i s i f he

changed h i s plea from

one of

n o t g p i l t y t o g u i l t y ,

t h e Crorin

rco~lld

t h e n

seek

l e a v e

to enter a nolle pr-osequi on t h e second count i n t h e indic tment

i n i t s o r i g i n a l form.

H i s IIonour

t h e n

r a i s e d

t h e

q u e s t i o n

whether

t h e r e shcll ld be

v e r d i c t o f

t h e j u r y

on t h e second cot

T h e

Crottn

P r o s e c l ~ t o r

informed his'Hono:ir

t h a t t h e a c c ~ s e d

xcas r

i n t h e charge

t h e j u r y

t h z t count

a t t h a t j u n c t u r e .

H i s

Honour acceded t o t h i s s t a t emen t ,

which,

i t i s nov:,

conceded,

w a s i n c o r r e c t .

The

accused was i ndeed i n t h e cha rge of

t h e

jury

t h e

second count .

The

accused x a s t hen

r e - a r r a igned

t h e f i r s t coun t ,

p leaded g u i l t y t o it

and t h e Cror\-n a p p l i e d t c

. .

ad<: a

fresh

count

t o t h e

i n d i c t m e n t ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it

v:or~lcl

e n t e r a

n o l l e p rosequi

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

second count i n t h e

i n d i c t m e n t

i n i t s o r i g i n a l form.

H i s Honour

accep ted

under,

t a k i n g

ron the Ct-orcn t h a t this \\+ould be done a n d t h ~ r c ~ ~ p o n

Crown

a p p l i e d t o s u b s t i t u t e a n o t h e r

co:lnt

f o r the

second

c o ~ ! n t

namely

c h a r g e o f

u ~ l a w f u l

a n d m a l i c i o u s

damage

i n t h e

n i g h t ,

p a r t i c u l a r s whereof

were

t h a t t h e a c c u s e d

d i d on

t h e

2 0 t h

November

1978

a t Lambell

T e r r a c e ,

Darwin,

u n l a w f i l l l y

and

m a l i c i o ~ ~ s l y

comni t

damage

i n t h e n i g h t

t o r e a l a n d p e r s o n a l

p r o p e r t y ,

namely

t h e Day

C e n t r e of

Darwin

H o s p i t a l

and

c h a t t c l :

t h e r e i n ,

srich damage

amount ing t o $100.00,

Counsel

f o r t h e

a c c u s e d

c c n s e n t e d

t o a t h a t

amendment.

'The

a c c u s e d

was

t h e n

a r r a i g n e d on

t h e s o b s t i t ~ ~ t e d

second

c o u n t

(as it

was

c a l l e d )

and pleaded g ~ i l t y

t o t h a t c o u n t .

The

restllt

o f

t h i s pr.oced~.r .e

v.-a~

t h a t t h e a c c v s e d

had

p l e a d e d

g-tilt?.

t o t h e o r i g i n a l

f i r s :

c o l ~ n t

i n t h e i n d i c t . m e n t anci

t o a

f u r t h e r c o i ~ n t

zdded t y t h e

l e a v e &f t h e t r i a l j t~dge c n t h e t h i r d day of

t h e t r i a l .

The

l e a r n e d t r i a l j i i dge

t h e n

d i r e c t e d the

j u r y

t o e:ltcr

verdi 'c t

o f

g u i l t y i n r e l a t i o n t h e first. ecr ln t

and t h e seccnc!

cc.lxn",;!.iz

hnd been ,~dc!ec! bp l e a v e .

make scnc 6 o n n e n t s l a t e r =~t.c~r$

3.r

p r o p r i e t y cf

this

proced:lre,

5 u t t h e f o l l o i i i n g f s c t s a r e coix;:cr I

g r c ~ n d

t h e h e a r i n g

t h e

a 2 p e a l b e f o r e 11s:

( 1 )

The Crown

gave an u n d e r t a k i n g t c f i l e a

n o l l e

p r o s e ~ r t i

i n r e s p e c t

t h e c r i g i n a l

second

coun t

i n t h e i n d i c t lien t;.

( 2 )

The n c l l e proscc!ili

was i n f a c t f i l e d i n thc

name

G r a i l a m i:i

c h a r d

Xi c h o l scr.

r:ho

lmc:

p r e s e c t e d

t h e

c r i g i n z l i n d i c t m e n t ,

a l t h e ~ g h

i t i s n o t e d that t h e n ~ l l e

proseqi i i

a s

f i l e d

\\-as n o t s i g n e d b y t h e said

Graham

Richarc!

Kicho l son

o r anyone

e l s e .

( 3 )

The

a p p l i c a t i o * .

t o amend

t h e i n d i c t m e n t

2 s t c add

t h e c o u n t

m a l i c i o u s

d a x ~ g e

t o

. .

prcperty

i n t h e n i g h t wzs

made

o r a l l y .

( 4 )

The

l c a r n e d

p r m s e c ~ r t o r

~ t h o

made

that

a p p l i c a t io i i

t o acid

t h e c o ? ~ n t

\(as

n o t

? e r s o n

s?po in tec l

t h e At to rney-Genera l

t o p ~ - o s e c ? ~ t e

0.1

i n d i c t x e n t

prrrsrlant t o t h e provisions c.f

s.13 of t h e

Cri rni .nal

l n l i azcl

P r c c e d . l r t .

A c t .

(j)

The

\\-!lole p r o c e d - l r e '3t'fc,r-E: t h e

tri.21 j : ldgc

,.,ss

taker.

\ i i t h

t h e

ccnse i l t

the

r e s ~ c i i d e n t .

I n t h e courbse o f

t h e h e a r i n g

this

a p p e a l

c e r t a i n

m a t t e r s were

r a i s e d by

t h e C o u r t

r e l a t i n g t o t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

o r o t h e r w i s e of

f i l i n g a

n o l l e proseqr l i

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

o r i g i n a l

second c o u n t ,

t h e f a c t t h a t it

was

a p r a r e n t l y f i l e d by

p e r s o n

h o l d i n g an

appo in tment

from

t h e At to rney-Genera l

u n d e r

s.13

t h e C r i m i n a l

Law

and

P r o c e d u r e Act

t o p r o s e c u t e by

i n d i c t m e n t

but

a u ' t h o r i t y

t o d e c l i n ' e t o p r o s e c u t e ,

t h e f a c t

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o add

t h e c o u n t o f

m a l i c i o u s damage

t o

p r o p e r t y

i n t h e n i g h t was

made

o r a l l y and

n e v e r

r educed

t r ?

w r i t i n g

( e x c e p t by

h i s Honoi~r ) s o t h a t i t was

n o t

a p p a r e n t

i t s f a c e t h a t

t h a t

c o u n t

was

p r e s e n t e d

p e r s o n

a u t h o r i s e d

i n t h a t b e h a l f ,

a n d was

i n f a c t made

a p e r s o n who

was n o t

a ~ l t h c r i s e d

t h e At to rney-Genera l

t o p r o s e c u t e

i n d i c t m e n t

p u r s ~ l a n t to

apmin t r i l en t

under '

S. 1 3 .

These

m a t t e r s h a v i i ~ g

been

r a i s e d ,

i t was

ccncecled

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

+;hat t .he ? y o c e d * ~ r

whereby

t h e o r i g i n a l second c o u n t was

d i s p o s e d

was

i r r e g ~ l a r

i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

I t \\-as conceded

t h a t the

a p p r c n r i a t e

c o u r s e ,

h a v i n g regarc!

t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e accirsed

was

t h e n

i n

the c h a r g e of

t h e jvtry

t h e second c o u n t

a s t c e l l a s t h e f i r s t

c o u n t ,

was

t o d i r e c t t h e j u r y

t o e n t e r a v e r d i c t o f

not

g l i l t y

i n r e l a t i o n to t h a t count . .

I t i s a mat ter - o f

l i t t l e ccncelr '

t h a t t h e Cro1r.n s:iggested

c o u r s e t o t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j!ldge

whic.h

was

~ \ . l l o l l y

i n a p p r o p r i a t e

i n a l l t h e

c i rc : rms tances .

The

i r r e g u l a r i t y

was

e x a c e r b a t e d

t h e f a c t t h a t ~ c h e n

t h e n a l l e

prosear l i

was filed a p p a r e n t l y i t was

f i l e d by

t h e same

person

who

had

p r e s e n t e d

t h e o r i g i n a l i n d i c t m e n t

and

\,-as

argt.ied

on behalf

t h e Cram

t h a t t h i s was

a p r o p e r

course

b e c a i ~ s c

of t h e provision

of s.43 o f the

. I n t c r p r c t n t i o n ;let;.

T h i s

s e c t i o n

r e a d s : .

" 4 3 .

Where an Act

c o n f e r s a power t o <ake a n

a c t i o n o r t o make,

g r a n t o r issue

any i n s t r l ~ m e n t

l e g i s l a t i v e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

c h a r a c t e r ,

t h e porcer

s h a l l b e

c o n s t r u e d

a s i n c l u d i n g

power exerc isab1.e i n a l i k e manner and s:tbject

t o t h e ,

l i k e

c o n d i t i o n s

t o r e p e a l , r e s c i n d ,

r evoke ,

amend

o r v a r y

any

such

a c t i o n o r i n s t r u m e n t . "

t h e h e a r i n g of

t h i s a p p e a l t h e Crown's

argument

rcas

t h a t a

p e r s o n

\\-h0 had

been

a r r t h o r i s e d

t h e At to rney-Genera l

t o p r o s e c u t e

indi .c tment

i n h i s o ~ \ ~ r i

name

coi l ld

p u r s u a n t

t o

s.43

o f

t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act

r e p e a l ,

r e s c i n d ,

revolce,

amend

o r v a r y

any

i n d i c t m e n t

s o p r e s e n t e d .

I n my

v i e t i t h i s argrrment

is f a l l a c i o u s .

Certainly

s.43

t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act

~ i o u l d

o p e r a t e s o a s t o i n v e s t i n the Attorney-Genera l

t h e potier

t o

repeal ' ,

r e s c i n d ,

r evoke ,

ameild

o r v a r y any

a p p o i n t n c n t of

p e r s o n

t o p r o s e c u t e

b y

i n d i c t m e n t

i n his

own

nane ,

buk

t h a t i s

n o t t o say

that. an

appo in tment u n d e r s.13

would

i n v e s t i n t h e

a p p o i n t e e

power

t o e n t e r a

n o l l e p r o s e q u i

i n proceedings

wher

that

p e r s o n

had

z l r e s d y

p r o s e c u t e d

indict;r;lent. i r t h i s o\cn

nanc.

A p a r t

from

o r d i n z r y

c o n s t r u c t i o n

o f

s .43

anG

the

n a t u r e

o f

n o l l e p r o s e q u i

t h e r e a s o n

f o r t h i s i s c l e a r .

I t i s a

v e r ?

s i g r ~ i f i c a n t

m a t t e r

for

t h e Cl-ov:n

t o d e c l i n e t o

p roceed

f l ~ r t f i e r -

i n c i r cun : s t ances

t ihere

thc

ordinci ry

pr*cccdur~e

cf co~mittal

f o r

t r i a l befo1.e

court

supnar j - j u r i s d i c t i o ; ~

a n d

tkc

f i r i d i n g

b i l l of

i n d i c t m e n t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e .

I t i s n o t

s a r p r i s i n ;

and. a c c o r d s w i t h sounc!

e x e c u t i v e government

t h a t t h e Attorr ley-

G e n e r a l

~ ~ o u l d

w i s h t o p r c s e r v c t o h i m s e l f

t h e par\-er

t o nakc

t h t

u l t i m a t e

and

i izpor tar i t

d e c i s i o n

d e c l i n i n g

t o

prosecute

f u r t h e r where

t h e s e

a c ! m i n i s t r a t i v e

a c t s have

been

comple ted

a s

p a r t

o f

t h e

o r d i n a r ? .

p r e l i m i r ~ a r i e s

t o a prosec!ltio!i

o f an

i n d i c t a b l e

offe l lcc

( s e c AI-c!;bc\ld

3 9 t I .

ed.,

p a r a .

1 4 2 :

k',-...tson c.;

P u r n e l l ,

Cricr inat

L,\!:

i n X e w

So:ith

l < a l e s , pat-a.

1060;

a i ~ d

R ,	V .	D c ~ e r i d - c ( 1 0 0 4 )	26 \ $ . K .	1 5 2 ) .
-

I n my

view,

t l l e r e f o r e ,

t h e n o l l e p r o s e q u i ,

i f

f o r no

o t h e r r e a s o n ,

was

i n e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s c a s e .

Even

i f t h e

document

f i l e d had been

i n p r o p e r form

and p r e s e n t e d by

p e r s o n

who

had

a u t h o r i t y t o f i l e a

n o l l e p roseq i l i ,

t h i n k

t h a t it

s h o u l d have

been

s e e n on

i t s f a c e t o have been

e s e c r i t e d

s u c h

p e r s o n

a n d not

b e

u n s i g n e d

document.

F o r the

p r e s e n t

pnr*poses, horiever,

n o t h i n g P u r t h e r

t u r n s upon

t h i s

series

i r r e 3 1 l a r i t ; i e s .

c o n s i d e r

i m p o r t a n t t o p o i n t

o u t

t h a t

t h e p r o c e d u r e s

a d o p t e d

i n t h i s case

w e r e i r r e g u l a r

aqd

s h o ~ l l d

a v o i d e d

i n the

f u t u r e .

T h e next

m a t . t e r

t o ~ c h i c h

a t t e n k i o n

s h o u l d

d i r e c t e d

t h a t

the

procedure

whcraeby a n o t h e r

c h a r g e

\\.as

p r e f e r r e d

a g a i n s t

t h e 2cc11sed

was i r r k g p l a r .

The

a p p l i c a t i o n t o add

t h e c o u i ~ t

\\.as an

01-al

a p p l i c a t i o n rriade,

a s I

s a i d e a r l i e r ,

C r - o ~ n

P r o s e c u t o r >iho was

n o t

p e r s o n

a p p o i n t e d

L')? t h e At to rney-

G e n e r a l

purs:lant.

t o s. 1 3 of

t h e C r i m i n n l Lnv:

2nd

Proce<l:~r>e

=fct..

Li; i s p l a i n

from

the

t e r m s of

the 1 n d i c t r ; l e n t ~ ;

A c b

s . 7

t h a t a;:

indiccn;c:?t

s!loulr! i n d i c a t c t h e name

o f

t h e p e r s o 2 bg- v;;.iloz i t

i s prcscated

a n d t h e authority of 'that p e r s o n t o prescrlk

it.

Pr-ior. t o t ! ~ e

I n c i i c t r i e n t s A c t .

l ? (?

t;her.c

was

l e g i s l a t i o r l

~ . e g u l z t i i ~ g

t h e presentation

o f i n c 5 c t m c n t s or- their for% i

t h e S o r t h e r n

Tcrrii;or.).;

- c o n s e q u e n t l y i n d i c t m e n t s

weye

f o r m e r l y

p r e s e n t e d

i n coi:l.non

law

l a n g u a g e

a n d

form.

Thc I n d i c t m e n L 5

.Act

1965

p r o v i d c s

f o b Lhe

manner

p r e s e n t a t i o n

o f

inc l i c t c i cn t s

fol

the

p r o s c c ~ ; t i o n o f

c r i m i n n l

o f f e n c e s

i n the

X0rt1,~er-n

T e r r i t o r > -

a n d , n a k e s

p l a i n

t h a t

indj -c t rnents s h o u l d

cf largc

t h e

apprnp l - i :

offences

i n i n t c l l i g i . b l c a n d

p l a i n

lan311age.

upon. S. 1 s o f

t h e X ~ ~ d i c t , h e ~ ~ i ; s

A c t a s nllrtlior.ity f o r t h c

i n .

which

t h i s i n d i c t m e n t \\-as amended,

i f t h a t i s t h e p r o p e r

kerm,

t h e

a d d i t i o n

a n o t h e r

c o u n t

o f

o f f e n c e

a - d i f f e r e n t

n a t u r e .

Sec t i -on 18

t h e I n d i c t m e n t s

Act

r e a d s :

n 1 8 ,

( l

)

Where,

b e f o r e t r i a l o r a t any s t a g e of

t r i a l ,

a p p e a r s t o khe c o u r t t h a t t h e

i n d i c t m e n t

i s d e f e c t i v e ,

t h e

c o u r t

s h a l l make

such

o r d e r f o r t h e amendment

o f

t h e i n d i c t m e n t

a s t h e c o u r t

t h i n k s n e c e s s a r y t o meet

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f

t h e

c a s e ,

u n l e s s ,

h a v i n g

r e g a r d

t o t h e m e r i t s of

t h e c a s e ,

t h e

r e q u i r e d

amendments

c a n n o t

b e

made

w i t h o u t

i n j u s t i c e ,

a n d may make

stlch o r d e r a s t o t h e payment

o f

any

c o s t s i n c u r r e d owing

t o t h e n e c e s s i t y

f o r

amendment

a s t h e c o u r t t h i n k s f i t .

( 2 )

I fhere

an i n d i c t m e n t

i s so

amended,

n o t e of

t h e o r d e r f o r amendnent

s h a l l be

e n d o r s e d

t h e

i n d i c t m e n t ,

and

thc

i n d i c t m e n t

s h a l l b e

t r e a t e d

f o r t h e p u r p o s e s

o f

t h e t r i a l

and

f o r t h e

p u r p o s e s

o f

a l l p r o c e e d i n g s

i n

c o n n c s i o n

t h e r e w i t h

a s

h a v i n g

bcen

p r e s e n t e d

i n t h e amended fo rm,"

T h i s

p r o v i s i o ~ l

i s no

j u s t i F i c a t i o n

f o r t h e

c o u r s e

t\.hich Itas

a d o p t e d

at. . t he t r i a l .

i his ind ic t r i ?en t was

n o t

def e c t i v c ,

I C

may

ell

be t h a t the e v i d e n c e led by

t h e Cro1i.n !(as

i n s u f f i c i e n i

t o

s u p p o r t

c o n v i c t i o n

t h e second

c o u n t

i n i t s o r i s i n z l

form.

But

6 h a t i s n o t t h e same

t h i n g a s s a y i n g t h a t t h e

inc1icl;merlt

>:as

d e f e c t i v e .

The p u r p o s e o f

S . 1 9

i s t o pc:-rni t

arnendqent

o f

a n

i n d i c t m e n t

s o a s t o meeC

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

t h e c a s e

p r o v i d e d

t h i s can

done

\ \ - i thou t in j r ls t iee

t o titc

accused ,

re jec t ;

t h e Cro\cnl S a rguments i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e

b a s e d

upon

S . 15.

It Isas

fu ' r thc t - contt51lded by

t h e Cro\cn t h a t t h e

i r r e g u l a r i t i e s

r e f e r r e d

t o

a r e

o f

accour-il; b e c a u s e

t h e a c c u s

c o n s e n t e d t;o

t h c c o u r s e

a d o p t e d by

t h e Crown.

The

Crown

h a s a

duty t o t h e C o ~ ~ r t

t;o

assist

it i n t h e t a s k of

c o ~ l d ~ c t i r i g

c r i m i n a l

t r i a l ,

i n c l r ~ d i n g

t h c

a r r a i g ~ l ~ ! ~ e n t

of' t h e accu:,ed,

t ! ~ :

r c c o ~ d i n g

o f

his

p l e a s

and

t h e p r e s e n t a t i o r l

ally

c v i d c n c c

i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h

p r o p e r

r u l e s o f

c r i m i n a l

p rocedxre .

The

Crown

s h o u l d

m e t i c u l o u s

t o e n s u r e

t h a t s t r i c t l y a p p r o p r i a t e

c r i m i n a l

p rocedr l res

a r e adop ted .

F o r

t h e Crown

t o r e l y upon

t h e

c o n s e n t

o f

t h e a c c u s e d

a s an

a b s o l u t i o n

f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o

a s s i s t t h e

c o u r t

i n i k p o r t a n t m a t t e r s of

p r o c e d u r e

i s a

d e r e l i c t i o n

i t s a l l i m p o r t a n t

d u t y t o t h e

c o u r t .

T h e

Crolin

i s u n d e r

d u t y t o a s s i s t t h e c o u r t ' t o avoid

any

depar - tu res

f rom

p r o p e r

c r i m i n a l

p r o c e d u r e ,

e s p e c i a l l y i f

t h o s e

d e p a r t ~ i r e s

migh t

r e s u l t ,

a s t h e y d i d i n this c a s e ,

i n a

p l e a o f

g u i l t y t o

a	c h a r g e	i m p r o p e r l y	p r e s e n t e d	and	a	s e n t e n c e b e i n g	imposed	alpon
%

a n

accrlsec!

p e r s o n

s:ich

i m p r o p e r l y

p r e s e n t e d

c h a r g e ,

T h c r e wo:ild

fer i

c a s e s indeed , ~ ~ l l c r e

a n appel1at ;e c o u ~ ~ t

~,*otllci

in te r \ - e r l e

o n

a p p e a l

t h e

Crolin

a g a i n s t

sen te i l cc

c o r r e c t

a.i

a l l e g e d

s e n t e n c i - n g e r r o r

i n c r e a s i n g t h e

s e n t e n c e

ii'

the

Cr*or:.n had

n o t

done

!\-hat was

r e a s o n a b l y

r e q u i r e 6 t o a s s i s

t h e

s e n t e l ~ c l n g

judge

t o a v o i d e r r o r s i n p r o c e d u r e .

\\'hat 1

h2vc

sail

a l r e a d y

i s s : l f f i c i e n t

t o i n d i c a t e t h a t i f a n

a p p l i c a t i o n

teas n~adc

t o q~lasf i

t h e

c o n v i c t i o n

and

s e n t e n c c nil

t h e

s u b s t i t u t :

corlnt

o f

r n n l i c i o ~ ~ s

darnage

t o p r o p e r t y i n t h e n i g h t u n d e r

s.12o

o f

t , l re

C r i m i c a l

L,?r-

Consol i d a t i o n Act,

1%-ould

b e

d i sposed tc

quash

th r :

c o n - < i c t i o n and

s e n t e n c e .

X o

such

n p p l i c ? t i o n

hzs

!:.cc

made

a t t h e p r e s e n t

t i n i c b u t

t h e Crvlin

s h o u l d l t s e l f

a p p l y

f o r

such

o r d e r .

The

poi\-ers o f

t h i s C o u r t 11ndc1- s . 2 9 ( 1 )

t h e

F e d c r n l

C o u r t

A ~ ~ s t r a l i a

A c t

a r e

sr:f f i c i e n t

a r l t h o r i t y f o r

t h i s cour>se .

t h e f i r s t c o u n t t h e responrlent

\ias

s e n t e n c e d t o

impr- i

sonment f o r f

0111-

y e a r s and

t e n

c a l e n d a r mon , I l s w i t h

1131.d

l abo l i r

2 n d

t;hc

se:;i;encing

j t l c l g e

s p e c i f i.&d a

pcr io t i

of'

tl,.c,

>.calx

durirtCI;' \.;hi &h t h e

r .espondent

\spr~ld n o t

become

e1igi.L;l.c:

f ~ c r . p a l o

I n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e c o n d c o u n t

the

r e s p o n d e n t

w a s sentenced

t o two

y e a r s

i m p r i s o n m e n t

w i t h

h a r d

l a b o u r

a n d

t h e

s e n t e n c i n g

judge,

k p e c i f i e d

p e r i o d of

one

y e a r d u r i n g which

t h e r e s p a n d e n .

wou ld n o t become

e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e .

The

l e a r n e d j u d g e 01-dere

that

b o t h

s e n t e n c e s b e

s e r v e d

c o n c u r r e n t l y

and

f u r t h e r o r d e r e d ,

p u r s u a n t

t o t h e Crirni.nn1

L a w

(Cond i t i . ona1 Release

o f

o f f e n d e r s

A c t ,	t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t	b e r e l e a s e d	a f t e r s e r v i n g p a r t of	h i s
-

s e n t e n c e ,

n a x e l y on

J u l y 1979,

on his

e n t e r i n g i n t o a

r e c o g n i z a n c e

i n t h e s u m o f

$500.00

( l )

t o be

o f

good

b e h a v i o u r

f o r a

p e r i o d of

3 y e a r s ,

( 2 ) upon

r e l e a s e t o r e p o r t f o r t h w i t h

t o t h e p r o b a t i o n

o f f i c e a n d

s u b m i t

h i m s e l f

t o t h e super\-ision

; r o b a t i o n

o f f i c e r a n d s u b j e c t hirnsclf

t o such rneclica'l

t r c a t r n c n t

a s ma;\, be

r e q i ~ i r c d , ( 3 ) to

pay

\\-a?- of

r e s t i t ~ ~ t i o n

t h e s r l m of

$3';00.00

i n , p a r t ; payments

as. shci\fi her*euncier:

(i )	$300.00 bj- 20 Dece;:tber 1979;

(ii)

' SlGOC.00

by 20 Dccember 1 9 S i ~ ;

( i v )

$100C,00 by

30 J u n e l 9 S 2 .

I t 112s. b e e n

c o n t e n d e d on

th is

a1:peal

thzr.

thc:

s e c t c n c i n g

j u d g e irnptaopcrl!-

exercised h i s discretion, act.ec! cpon nr.cr:g

p r i n c i . p l e s

and

a i l c d t o tpkc. i n t o a c c c u n t

re le \ .ar i& ccb:l.i

i . , ~ r , ~ t

the

r c s u l t of

which

w a s t h a t h e was

wrong i n o r d e r - i n g tile

sus:).ension

o f

t h e

c p e r a t i o n

o f

t h e head

sen t e ~ c e s

and non-pnro:

p e r i o d s ,

and

t h a t the

head

s c n t c n c e s

a n d n o n - p n r c l e

p e r i o d s

wc.

i n thernsclves

i n a d e c p a t e i n all

t h e c i rcu lns t ;ances .

The

Cro\\-ri

contendec? that. t h e

s e n t e n c i n g juclge

s h o u l d have

imposed

sul>st

a r t t i a l

head

s e n t e n c e on

eacll

cot ln t

' and

s l lould have

f o~lnr'l

tllat;

i n a l l t h e c i l ~ c u ~ ~ ~ s . t ; a n c c s

t.1le. c i ~ t y

s p c c i f j - a

1101;-i?nrolc

p e r i o d

' ~ . c - ~ u i r e d

by s . d ( l ) of the p--------

Pal-oler cf P1.i soncr .s

A c t 1076

did

n o t a p p l y becar~se o f

t h e n a t u r e o f

t h e o f f c n c e s and t h e

a n t e c e d e n t s o f

t h e o f f e n d e r .

S e c t i o n

4 ( 3 )

o f

t h e A c t p r o v i d e s

t h a t t h e

d u t y d o e s n o t

a p p l y

t r i f

t h e c o u r t

c o n s i d e r s t h a t t h e

na-t;urc of

t h e o f f e n c e

o r o f f e n c e s

a n d t h e a n t e c e d e n t s o f

t h e

o f f e n d e r

n o t .c\.arrant t h e s p e c i f y i n g o f

t h e lesser t e r m c\f

imp r i sonmen t l l .

In The Qrrecn v. T a ' b & ~ a r t l e ~

' ( u n r e p o r t e d

d e c i s i o n

t h i s C o ~ l r t

d e l i v e r e d o n

1 Flay

1 9 7 9 ) t h e C o u r t

se t o u t t h e

p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g

t h e

r e v i e l c

t h e

s e n t e n c i n g

c l i s c r e t i o n

a p p e l . l a t e c o l j r t ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n a

case

o f

a n appeal

t h e Cr-olin on t h e g r o ~ ~ n d

t h a t

the

s e n t e n c e

i s i n a d c r y l a t e .

I t . i s

n o t ~~~~~~~~~~y

t o r e p c a t ~ I l c l t ; I-:as

s e t o11t i n t h a t j : rdg icn t ;

i t

is s u f f i c i e n t

t o o ~ s e r v c

t h a t t h i s C o ? ~ r t

will

o n l y l i l t c r f e r e

j f

I>e shov.-11 t h a t , the

s e n t c ~ ~ c i n g

j u d g e

was i r i e r r o r i n a c t i n g or

\irong

p r i . n c i p l e

o r

i n r n i s u n d c r s t a n d i n g

o r w-ong-1)-

a s sess ing

some

s a l i e n t f e a t l i r e

t h e e v i d e n c e .

The

e r r o r mn?.

zppeal-

i r i

\chat

t h e -juCge

s a i d i n the

p r o c e e d i n g s

o r t h e s e n t e f i c o

itself

mal- be

excess ive

o r i n a d c r u a t e

a s t o m a n i f c s c

s u c h

e l * r o r .

-4s

stated

i n t h a t

c a s e ,

t h e r e l e v a n t pl-ovi .s ions

o f

the:

F ~ c ? ~ i . ; . l

C o r l r t

af -...

. s i - ~ s t r . ~ l i a

A c t

n o t p r o v i d e

any

b a s i s f o r d i s t i n -

gl l ishi-ng tiett\.een the gcrlcrnl

p r , i n c i p l c s to

tie

a p p l i e d 1:~'

t h e

Cout*t on

Ct-.o\:n

appea l

a g a i n s t

s e n t e n c e

a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e s

t o bc

a p p l i e d on

a p ? e a l

a g a i n s t

s c n t c n c c b y

c o n v i c t e d

persc:~.

. .

T h e f a c t s g i ~ ~ i n g

r ise

t o t h e c o ~ l n t s

a g a i n s t t h e

r.espc~1-16e

a l l took

p lace o c 2 0 Kovember

1978.

A t t h a t time hc lsas

r c s i d i n g a t 1

Lambcll

T e r r a c e wh ich

i s o p p o s i t e t h e Dtlrv:in

l i o s p i t a l .

!le

had bccn

I j . v i n , ~

t h c r c :or-. a b o u t

ttivc! lnontl12 .

Prsca!ises I-UII b)- the Red Crboss , l<l~or:.n

a s tile kcd Cl-oss Cp;~c)r~k~rz~

Shop, are a l s o i n t h e same street .

Dur ing tt7.e six o r seven

months p r i o r t o 20 November

t h e r e s p o n d c n t

had

done

some

v o l u n t a r y work

f o r t h e Red

C r o s s ,

Sunday

19 Xovernber

1975

the

r e s p o n d e n t ,

one

F i n d l a y ,

and

a n o t h e r

p e r s o n

a r r a n g e d

t o

d i n e a t a

r e s t a u r a n t i n Darwin.

They

a r r i v e d a t t h e restai.117ant

a t 6.30

pan. and

t h e o b s e r v a t i ' o r ~ khen

made

o f

them,

i n c l u d i n g o.

t h e respondent;,

was

t h a t t h e y were

n o t i n t o x i c a t e d .

They ]lad

some

mixed

d r in fcs and

t h e n

f o u r b o t t l e s

o f

wine

l \ - i th d i n n e r .

The

r e s p o n d e n t

a n d

F i n d l a y l e f t t h e

r e s t a u r a n t

between

12.15

and

12.45

a.m,

a n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t 1 S

c o n d i t i o n was

t h e n

d e s c r i b e

as bei11g '1s

b i t i n t o s i c a t e d l '

o r " t h r e e parks

drunlcl'.

The

r c spcnden t ;

was dl-ixren hoinz

t o 1

Larnbell Terrace

a n d F i n d l a y

went.

t o bed.

T h e

?rcr?iiscs v;ere

or\-ned by

t h e p r o p r i e t o l - e s s o f

t h e

restallrai1.t

and

shc came

hone

a b c u t ha l f

houl- l a t e r .

T h c

' r e s p o n d e n t cnd

t h e

n r o p r i e t o ~ . e s s

t h e n hat!

t \ io

b o t t l e s o f

Seer-.

The p r o p r i c t o r e s s went t o bed

at; a b o u t 3 a.n.

by \.;hicl1 t i x e thc

responc?ent ss f a i r l y drun:;,

V*'hen .she went t o bed Cherc riere

f o u r o r f

i\-c: b c t t l c s of

Cro\\.n Lager- b c e r still t o bc

cons!~r.!cd;

.\\*hen

s h e go",1:,

t h e next. rnol-ning She fouxlcl that they had inc!ccc

been cons~imcd.

A t abc! l t 3.35

a.m,

on t h e x c r r ~ i n g

of 20 Sovcr;:iGc

1 9 7 8

the

cc i i t r o l

roorz

o f

t h e

Sol - thern

Tet-r-itor-S F ive

B ~ a i g a d c :

I-ecei-ved a

n:essc?ge

t l l a t . t l ~ e r e

leas

fi-rc i n S c h n l z

S t r e e t ,

\ihil

i s c l o s e tc, L a c h e l l 'Te r race ,

fi .re t e n d e r \<as q?lic!cl>-

d e s p a t c h e d

a!id

arrival

t h e

f i r e b r i g a d e

f o ~ i n d the. o p p o r t ~ i n i

s h o ~

f i tbe .

took

about

t e n r i l i z lu tc2s t o b r i n g t1:e

fire a n d

c o n t r o l ,

I t was deduced t h a t t h e f i r e had ccrmnenced

i n the

bedroonl

i n t l - io~~c

p l t e m i s c - S ,

b11i; t h e r e was

no-one

i n r e s i d c n c c .

E lcc l ; r . i ca l

f a u l t ;

a s a

c a ~ ~ s e

o f t;!ie

f i r e v-3s r t ~ l c d

o u t but,

a l t h o u g h

t h r e e

"11ot

s p o t s u which

a p p a r e n t l y

a r e t i l e

igniti.cn

p o i n t s of

a f i r e were

i d e n k i f i e d ,

t h e f i r e Srigade o f f i c e r s

were

u n a b l e

t o p i n p o i n t the

c a u s e o f

t h e fire.

A t d . 11

a.m.

on t h e same

day

a n o t h e r message

was

r e c e i v e d ,

o f

f i r e a t t h e

Day

C e n t r e

i n t h e Darwin

I I o s p i t a l .

T h i s i s a

c e n t r e f o r

p s y c h i a t r i c krea t rnent .

Again

f i r e t e n d e r was

d e s p a t c h e d and

it \tTas found that t h e r e \\.as a

f i r e i n a

m a l l s t o r a g e room i n

t h e Day

C e n t r e .

The

s t o r a g e

room

c o n t a i n e d

s u c h h i g h l y

i n f l a m r n b l e

a r t i c 1 . e ~

a s t o i l e t and

p a p e r

r o l l s .

Between

4 . 4 . 3 a.lil.

end 7.03

a.m.

t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o i ~

Dar~: . in

];cad-

q y a r t e r s r e c e i v e d

f o u r

t e l e p h o n e

c a l l s from

p e r s o n

c l a i m i n g

t o have lit the tv:o

f i r e s .

These c a l l s Icere tapccl ?.ncl

t r a n s d r i p t s of

t h e t a p e s vcre

prod~lce 'd

i n eviclence.

The c a l l s

were mzde b?- t h c r e s p ~ ~ l d c n t .

1l;hile he was rna!:i.ng

t l ~ c

lLstz

telcpf-,onc call t h e p o l i c e arril-ec' a t 1

L n ~ ~ l ~ e l l

Tcr racc ,

tlic

t e l e p h o n e

c2115

h a l - i i ; ~

been

t r a c e d

t o that;

a d d r - e s s .

Thc

p c l i c c

were

acfn l i t ; l ;ed,

oppl-chencied

t h e respondent;

ancl he

\<as t a k e n t-c!

khe

p o l i c e

s t a t i o n .

A t about

2 . m .

a t t h e p o i i c e

s t a t i o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t

l,-as

questioned by D e t . Const;.

Cainbriclgc.

Vlhen asked aLo:tt hi c.

movemcrits the previo:is night the respondent t c l d Dct. Const.

B a i n b r i d g e that he hacI

becn t o thc x-estaTlrnrit

\\itll*lci: ( ~ ' i n d l a ~

a n d ?$elj.ssa ( t h c 111-.r;.>t*ictorcss

thc

r e s t a u r a n t ).

IIc:

s a i d

t h a t

h e h2c? been

t h e r e u n t i l

.j:~st a f t e r m j d n i g h t

anc!.,

h a v i n g

been cir iven home, ri-llei~

biel issa

a r r i v e d h e spoke

t o hex- f er ,-,be::!

an hour arlcl then \ rent t o bed.

tic

s a i d 11c

had gone t o th .c

r e s , t a ! l ~ ~ a r l t

abor1.t h a l f

p a s t

sis afid clid not

l e a v e the h o l ~ s c

a f t e r hc

h z d get-

home.

Ile

c la imed t o liave

s l e p t 1111ti2 s c v c ~ i

i n t h c 1:io i l n i n g .

I!c

d c n i c c t l ~ a t ;

h e Ilad mc?cIc an) - !)ilc.nrl c;>

1 !

.c.

d u r i r ~ g

t h e ~ ~ : o r n i n g

and

s a i d c h a t

lie

\:.as aslccp.

I I c

clct~i.ci all:\-

knor~ ledgc of

t h e f i r e s a t t h e Red

C r o s s Cen t r e and t h e Day

Cen t r e .

H e

t h e n

sought

l e g a l

a d v i c e

and

h a v i n g

o b t a i n e d

d e c l i n e d

t o answer

any

f u r t h e r

q u e s t i o n s .

Damage by f i r e t o t h e Red Cross Oppor tun i ty Shop was

c o n s i d e r a b l e .

Damage

t o t h e Day

Cen t r e was

r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e

c o n t e n t s r a t h e r t han

s t r u c t u r a l damage.

It was contended on

the appea l t h a t t h e fires lit by t i le accused were

t h e g r a v e s

c h a r a c t e r ,

because

t h e n a t u r e

t h e bu i ld ings themse lves

and

their conkents .

The Cro\ill

contencled t h a t i t tsould

a p p r o p r i a

t o t a k e acccun t of

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of

danger t o l i f e and

p r o p e r t y .

I n p a r t i c u l a r &he Crown

ccntendetl t h a t t h e second

f i r e i n t h e Day

Ccntrc

was

i n a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of

t h e h o s ? i t a l

a t a t i m c when t h e prern.ises iscl-c v iz - tua l ly c!esert.ed?

n:al:ing

clore

p r o b a b l c that

f i r e \\:ould

q u i t e o u t of

c o n t r o l bc fo re

anybody became a1car.c of i ts existence.

These f a c t s \<ere not

d i s p u t e d b:,.

the respondent

e i t h e r or, h i s t r i a l o r on

appeal.

Tile

f a c t s :

co?rrse, had

a l r eadg- been

proved

i n e v i d e ~ ~ c c .

\<hen

tlic conclrrct

of the trial changecl a s i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r .

There

i i a s rea1l.y

o n l y one m a t t e r rihicll

was

a s s e r t ed

t h e Cro~:.n and

n o t acccj2ted b\; t h e res?cndent; on

t;he appea l ,

namely t h z t t h e

l i g h t i n g of

t h e f i r 3 e s was

p o t e n t i z l danger t;o

l i f ' e .

a]:; of

the vie\;. t h a t the	t r i a l judge	was	ccr - rec t i n f i n d i n g t l ~ a ' i cbc
people .

\Then t he coi.lrse of

+ h e t r i a l changed, t h e Crcxrn

f!lrr:ishe

n r a t e r i s l

t o the

senl ;encinc judge. by

war

s t a t e ~ n e t l t s

fro:n thc

b a r t aL\ lc .

I n c l v d c c l

\\.as

t;he

f a c t t h a t t h e

~.esponilcl l t

1126 tieer:

. re leased fr7c.n p r i ~ o n

i n \iesl;errl

A ~ ~ s t i - z l i a

c n 9 Apzxil 1?;C,

l i av ing

been

s c ~ ~ t c n c c c ?

i n Jsn:iar)* 19 7 6 , mcani:lg

t h a t he h x ~ ?

s e r v e d a

p e r i o d of

two y e a r s and t h r e e months.

L a t e r ,

a n

antecedents

r e p o r t was

f u r n i s h e d

s t a t i n g t h a t t h e

a'ccused

had

been

released 'on 8

A p r i l

1978

a f t e r s e r v i n g two

y e a r s ,

five

mont;hs

t h r e e year s e n t e n c e .

\ then

I l r .

L i v i n g s t o n e ,

p s y c h o l o g i s t ,

gave

evidence

b e h a l f

o f

t h e r e s p o n d e n t

r e f e r r e d t o t h e responden t

hav ing

b e e n v c r y aware t h a t he had been i n gaol f o r two scars,

sever,

months

and

t;hi rteen

d a y s .

p r e - s e n t e n c e

r e p o r t

r e q u e s t e d

thc

s e n t c n c i n g judge

s t a t e d t h a t t h e respondent hacl

b c e n

c o n v i c t e d or, two

count;s

arson on

13 J a n u a r y 1976 a n d

s e n t c n c c d t o t h r e e y e a r s

i m p i - j s o ~ m c n t

on each, t o he servccl

ccncu rl-en t ly .

IIe

w a s i rnpri soned a t t h e Frernant1.e Gaol and

thcri t r-nr-iaf crrler! ?;o khe \fooloorco T r a i n i I I ~

C e n t re.

T h e

s e ; l t c n c i n g

jtldge

t h a t .

occasion h a 4 cleclinec'; t o s ; x c i f y

non-?a:-ole

yc r iod .

T h c precise partic::lc?!-,S

cf this prcvic?:ls

judge

by the C ~ C I . : ~ ? at t h e t r i a l .

In this respect

a l s o I n:n of

t.ie vie\< thzt t h e C r o v ; ~ ~

f a i l e d propel-137 i;c di,scilzrg,.e its

. funclzmcrl tal

c ' c 1 - t ~ tc. give

tllc

caul-1;

f x l l

assi

stzncc: .

F r i o 1-

con\- i c c i n n s

tIlc

a c c x s e d

\\.el-e 2

v e r y

natex- iz l

consideration

. for t h c esc1-cise cP &he sentencing discreticrii.

e v c n t s t : ~ r r l e d o-zt t h e rcsponc 'c-nt

ac?lnitbcc: th.2

pl.e\-io!:

ccjilvi c t i c n s

a n d

s c r ~ t e n

cc S

i n r e s p e c t

o f f e11cc.s a ; ;?arc~l l ly

s e n t c n c i n g the

a c c u s e d

the p r i o r C C C ~ S ~ O I ~ ,

s1;cil

r'c~:lr?rl:s K C : ~

being made

t o eh i s a p p a r e n t oversight

a t t h e t r i a l t h e y were

n e v e r

f u r n i s h e d t o t h i s C o u r t

at;

t h e h e a r i n g of

t h e appea l .

The

consequences a r e t h a t t h i s C o u r t i s i n a

similar

p o s i t i o n

o f n o t c o n v i c t i o n s .

h a v i n g

very

p r e c i s e

p a r t i c u l a r s

t h e

p r e v i o u s

T h i s i s a

v e r y n n s a t i s f actory

s i t u n t ; i o n ,

~chcre

the Crown

appea l s .to &his Coui4t against

t h e inaclequac3- o f

s e n t c n c c .

The

C r o l : ~ ~

h a s a

d u t y t o t h i s Court

a l s o t o see t h a t

i t i s f11ll:-

infol-rned on

all

r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s ,

and it i s so

o l ~ y i o r ~ s

t o bc

u n n e c e s s a r y

state

that ;

p r i o r

c c ; i v i c t i o ; l s

f o r ofCcnccs of

a s i m i l a r nattlr-e a re estremcl?-

i m p o r t a n t

01-

t h c

q ~ * c s t i o n

pcn a l e ? - i n t h i s appeal.,

The coirmon

f a c t s I\-hicl: cr;:lcl-~cd

i n vsrieas v:ays

befo re

t,hc I.esrnec' sentcl lc ing j!ldge v:cl-c

t h a t e a r l y in Jan:lar.:;

l??<;

in t i ~ c

S:~y?rer.;e C c a l - t

1tcster.n 'c'l-istrali~

i n F c l t ! r

thc

zesponclc

rc-ns c c n x - i c t c d a112

scnt,encec: t o th i -ec years irL2risc;l;:eni;

0x1

trro

c o u n t s c f

a r s o n .

T1:c

s c n t e n c i : ~ ; judge

nccc:?tc.d

thosc

fact

r :nd

t h e rcs;rondent; h2s nclt

ccntendec! of;hcrlv:ise

on t h e h e ~ r * i . ; : ~

of t ; I l i s ~ p p c c l l . 1 r.epe:lt

that there v;as

a pauci.t?- of cvidencc

t h a t

the

c c ! : ~ i - t v:as

fr'u.11~

i r i f o rmed.

Tflc r:iclr? X-.c.citc;;l

t h e f c c t s oE

tile

of ' fencc~, no\.; ~ ~ i i l e : .

s ? . ~ L s t

antial 2201 sciltel~.ces

f o r ench

~f f cnce.

T!lz

nzs i rn~ . :~

]>I-.-. scrii>c.c!.

i;hc

clffe '~cc of 2rst.n a s cllnrged i n t!lr;.

Eirst

coani;

f G-.I i - k e e i ~ >.cars: t h e ni~:<im:.~:::

pcizzl t l- pl-cscr.iSeci

t h e s c b s t i t u t c c l

silcoi>d co:lr;t

is five

pears .

s e i ~ t e n c e c l

t o a

tel-111 of

imgriso:lment.

c o ~ ~ s i d e r a b l e

body of

p s y c h i a t r i c

and

p s j r c h o l o g i c a l

m a t e r i a l

was

p l a c e d

b e f o r e

s e n t e n c i n g judge

i n t h i s r c spe ' c t .

T h e r e was

a l s o somc

cviclence

geaeral

good

c h a r a c t . e r .

Before

t h e

s e n t e n c t n g

jtlcige

the

r e s p o n d e n t

a l s o o f f e r - e d t o make

r e s t i t u t i o n

o f

the

sun? o f

$3900.00

t h e r a t e o f $25.00

p e r we&,

p r o v i d e d t h a t he i ias

l i b e l - t y ,

n o t i n c u s t o d y ,

a n d

a516

t o g a i n

s a t j - s f a c t o r y

e inp l~o~~inen t .

I-Ie i n t l i c a t e d ,

t l l rough

h i s

c o ~ ~ n s c l

t ! la t

i f t h e

t r i a l :j!ldge

vas r! iaposed t o orcier his c o n d i t i o ~ l a l

r c l e a a e ,

rgpayme~l t cf

t h e c r s t of

t h c damage

c o u l d bc

c o n d i t i o n

the rc leese s:.!bjcct t o his

a b i l i t y t o pay.

T h e c o s i cE the

damage' ss a..ssertec': h:,? t h e res2017dent"s

col-insel rT;as n o t 3ccc:ptc;d

by the ~ro~\.l:.

Thc

e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e to

the C r c r m v:as

t h n k a

l o s s a s s e s s c r l-tad assessec!

.the

dar.iage

a t

$ 2 0 , 3 2 ? . C o .

t h i s 1 l . 2 ~

a n es t i .n?a tc cf thc

cost; of

r e p a i r s befcre

any

r e n a i r s r:ere

~ n < e r t & e n . The sei!t,encing

.j::dge

made nc f

i n d i r l g cf

Ezc t

about.

t;]ie c o s t 05 r e i l ~ i r s

t;lloug!r it; seems i m ~ l i c i t

fr.<;?! the t e r m s of

t h e

s e n t e n c e s

i m p ~ s e d

and i n ? a r t i c u l a r t115

terms o f t;he

col;c!iticl~al

r e l e a s e of

t h e r~espondent; ,

. t h ~ t

h e accc-?lied ?;hc

f i g u r e o f

.23500,00

asse r t ec :

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,

I n m):

vie^; the

cx+.clence

\:.CS

tcc f l i n s y on t h i s n e t t c r 2nd it \;as surc.1~,

r c l e ~ a n t

ccnsidet-ation f o r

t h e

trial

j u d g e .

The

Crol..~: s h o : ~ l d

have beer1

i l l a

p o s i t i o n nrld

sllo~:ld have

d i s c h ~ r g c d

i t s d1-1ty t o

i ~ l f o r n i

tile

ccllrt ; cit;hcra bj- evicleilce o r facts n c c c p t e d by

the

accu.scd p e r s o n of

t;hc

cost of

t h e daxage to t h e Red

C r - 0 s . s

premises

r e f c r r e d t o i n t h e first

c o u n t .

c a n n o t over-

emphzs i sc

tllc

h i g h

6 1 1 t y on

t!le

Cro~in

i n

' c r i m i n a l c z s e s t ; ~

rcnc'el- tilt i ~ t g i ~ ~ t

; I S S ~ S ~ ; Z ~ ~ C C

1;0 a. serll;~!icil.l:; j!lc!ge

i n l l i 5;

ada~inis ; t ; r -nt ic i i c P

thc

c r i m i n a l .

l a x .

I n endeavour ing

t o s t r i k e a

b a l a n c e

between

t h e v a r i o u s

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s whi.ch

s e n t e n c i n g judge

must

C a k e i n t o a c c o u n t ,

his

I lono~rr g a v e

considerable

weigh t

t o the

responden t1 S

p r o s p e c t s

o f

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

I I e

s a i d t h a t

t h e

o n l y

t r u e

solution

lay i n t h e p r o v i s i o n of

an oppor t ,un i ty t o the

r e s p o n d e n t

o f

making

u s e f u l ' l i f e

f o r h i m s e l f .

F o r

t h e s e

r e a s o n s he

imposed

s e n t e n c e s which

c a n o n l y

b e

d e s c r i b e d

a s

e s t r c l x ~ e i y m e r c i f u l .

The

Cror\ln

h a s

con tended

t h a t

t h e

d e g r e e

l e n i e n c y i n h e r e n t

i n t h e

s e n t e n c e s

r e n d e r s

t h e m i n a d e q t ~ a t e

and

inappraopr ia te ,

h a v i n g

r e g a r d t o t h e g r a v i t y

o f

t h e o f f e n c e s

I n my

v iew

t h e r e f o r m a t i v e

a s p e c t

h a s been

g i v e n t o o m:~ch

~ ~ c i ~ h t

and

i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e - t o t h e c i rcumst ,anccs

t h c

o f f e ~ l c e s

a n d

the

r e s p o n d e n t 1 S

a n t e c e d e n t s .

Nor

a r e t h e

p r o s p e c t s

o f

r e h a b i l i . t a t i o n

s i rppor ted

t i l e

p s y c l ~ o l o g i c n l

ancl

p s y c h i a t r i c

e v i d e n c e .

The

r e s p o n d e n t

prescntec!

p e r s o n

v;ith

r e c o g n i s a b l e

p e r s o n a l i t y

d i s o r d e r s ,

b u t

c q r ~ a l l y

h e

d o e s n o t

appear t o have

l e a r n e d any

l e s s o n

f rom his

c o n \ - i c t i o n s and

s e n t e n c e s i n l i e s t e r n

A u s t r a l i a

i n Jnntrill-y

1976 .

One

i s left

:,-ii;h

t h e g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n t h z t ,

given t;he

conb-

i n a t i o n

a l c h o l i c i n f l u e t l c e

and

r e s e n t m e n t

a t h i S

el lov;

hi lm:

b c i n g s , t l - ~ e

r e s p o n d e n t

i s

q u i t e l i k e l y t o o f f e n d

agai-n i n a

s i m i l a r tcay.

1Ie

h a s n e v e r

e x p r e s s e d any

c o n t r i t i o n

f o r ~~.llai;

did.

When

s p e a k i n g to the p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n one of

t h e

t a p e d t e l e p h o n e a t all s o r r y f o r xihat he had done.

c o n v e r s a t i o n s

h e

m a i n t a i n e d

that

yns

n o t

There x3s n o t h i n g i n t h e

p s y c h o l o g i c a l

and

p s y c l l i a t r i c

e v i d e n c e

c a l l e d on

h i s b e h a l f

which

i n d i c a t e d any

remorse

o r con t r i ( ; i r>n f o r h i s condtict

desp i . t e

ver.:,-

cstzi~sivc

co:lnselling

s i r ~ c c

his rc lcasc fr.cn!

p r i s o n

i n A p r i l

1978

and

s u b s e q ! ~ c n t

t o h i s arr-cst on Che

The

r e s u l t of

t h e s e n t c n c e s imposed was

n o t t o p r o v i d e

cond ign

punishment ,

n o r t o r e f l e c t

the g e n e r a l

m o r a l

s e n s e of

the

community

( ~ h a n n o n

P\, (1978) 20 A . L . R .

1 ).

I n my view

the

s e n t e r ~ c i n g

d i s c r e t i o ~ l

has

m i s c a r r i e d

and thi

C o u r t

s h o u l d

i n t e r v e n e .

As t h i s C o u r t

said i n The Queen v.

Prj.nd.able

( u n r e p o r t e d

d e c i s i o n ,

d e l i v e r e d i n B r i s b a n e

March

1 9 7 9 )

t h e r e t r i e ~ c

a p p e l l a t e

couri;

s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e ' s

d i s c r e t i o n

t o s u s p e n d

s e n t e n c e s i n v o l v e s

t h e

same

p r i n c i p l e s

a s a

r e v i e l i of

the j u d i c i a l

i l i sc re t i .on

t o impose

t h e llead

se l l t ence

i t s e l f

( ~ h c

/?ueen v.

Slluearcl ( 1 9 7 2 ) 4 S.A.S.R.

4 3 ) a n d i f the senCcrlce a s a whole i s seen t o be

so d i s -

p r o p o r t i o n a t . e

t o t h e

s e n t e n c e

x h i c h

t h c

c i r c u n s t a ~ l c e s

r c c l ~ ~ i r c

a s t o i n c l - i c a t e an	ei.rol-	of	n r i l ~ c i p l e ,	t h e	a p p e l l a t e	c o u r - t
should intervene.

Thcl-c

were

tv:o

s e p a r a t e i n v a s i c n s o f

p r c n c r t ~ -

ccznit tccl

cin t l ~ c

s3r.e light.

Cne matker t o bc consider.cc! i s v;ilethera t h e

s e n t e n c i n g

::;jclze

\<as c o i * r c c t i n o rde r in2 ti12l;

the seii tcnces

s e rved

zoi~c~:rrcn ' i l : - , p a r t i c ~ ~ l ; . r . l . ~ .

a s .t;hey

\:.ere

c u i t e

d i s t i r l c l ;

~ s c n t e n c c s .

They

!.:ere

c~rirrilittcc: on

thc

s.?mc

n i g h t i n t i l e

s a ! ; ~

1ocalit ;y

a n d

~ i l l e n %he r e s p c ~ ~ d e n i ;

tt-as -1nde1- t h e influence of

i n t u s i c ' 2 t i n g

! . i c ~ o r .

tbiinlc

tlie

s e n t e n c i n g jqlCgc*n-.~s.t;

h a v e

t a k e n these m a t t e r s i n t o acco!lrit

i n o l .de r ing th::t

thc

sc:ntence:

be,qer.vecl conc:!rl-ently

and f;!lat hc tc:r?s

n 3 t i n e r r o r . i n d c i : ~ ~

F o r t h e r e a s o n s i n d i c a t e d ,

however,

do n o t t h i n k t h a t this

Couri;

s hou ld make

any

o r d e r

i n r c spec t ;

t h e s c n t c r i c e on

t i le

subs t i%ul ;ed second c o u n t .

I n r e l a t i o n tc

t h e first

cosni; ,

orlc

i s requi.1-ed

t o c o n s i d c r

what;

sen tc l i cc v;ould

r e p r e s e n t Slit

, I n n:y

v i e ~ v

t h e h e a d

scfitexlce on the f i r s t count 1t.a~

unnppea3.ablc and s h o u l d s t n n t l .

I n orcier t o pr.ovidc

a n

appropr - ia te ,

d u l l 7 p r o p o r t i - o n a t e and

p r o p e r l y

balanced

s e n t e n c e

t I l inf t i t i s a p p r o v r i a t e tc? s p e c i f y a

perioci

tv;o

] 'cars ,

sis 1i10iit;hs d u r i n g ~~.!licll

t h e

I-espondcnt l i i l j .

n o t

eli . ; iblc

for parole .	I	do n o t t h i n l c i;hat,	t h c s e n t c n c i n s ;iilc!ge	s h m ~ i c i
scn t e n cc.

: -

)-C

j ~ : ; ? r i g ~ : n ~ c :

f ~ i - n y c . r i c 2 0; fwp --JPC:Y-~

teh m:~ti~s

nhd L wou')Itl sptcigy a per i td c-4 tm VCIPS.

3ix .

rnrnths dur;ng which h e

r i l l

nr-t h e el ; g : b l c Tor fnnnie

c e r t i f y that

t h i s and t h e e i g h t e e n preceeding

p a g e s a r e a

t r u e copy of

the Reasons f o r J ~ l d ~ n e l l t

herein

his Honour b l r .

Justice G a l l o p .

A s s o c i a t e .

27 June 1979

[1979] FCA 84

28 Jun 1979